From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:52537 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752930Ab3AaQCU (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:02:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:02:15 -0600 From: Seth Forshee To: Johannes Berg Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , Arend van Spriel , Stanislaw Gruszka Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Improvements to software scanning Message-ID: <20130131160215.GB28799@thinkpad-t410> (sfid-20130131_170224_886284_94256BAC) References: <1359503255-18270-1-git-send-email-seth.forshee@canonical.com> <1359644664.8415.68.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1359644916.8415.69.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1359644916.8415.69.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:08:36PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 16:04 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 17:47 -0600, Seth Forshee wrote: > > > > > Johannes: I have a couple of comments/questions for you related to these > > > patches. > > > > > > First, in the patches I've added an offchan_tx_ok argument to the tx > > > operations, but this seems a little awkward to me since it has to be > > > propogated down through a fairly deep call stack. The alternative idea > > > that occurred to me is to use a tx control flag, but that seems to be > > > pretty crowded. Any thoughts? > > > > Maybe you can bypass by using a flag in struct ieee80211_tx_data, so > > only the first few functions in the call chain need the argument? > > Otherwise, I guess adding a flag should be OK. I know it's crowded, but > > if we really run out I guess we could move all the internal flags etc. > > wholesale ... > > Ok no that was wrong ... we can't do that because many flags need to > survive queueing. An ieee80211_tx_data flag would work for this case, though it doesn't quite have the effect I was hoping for since it really only gets rid of the argument internal to tx.c. I avoided most of the pain by leaving ieee80211_tx_skb() unmodified, but it all still seems a bit ugly. If you're okay with the way I've got things now I'll just stick with it. I hate to gobble up valuable real estate in the tx control flags just to satisfy my sense of aesthetics ;-) Seth